MLB's announcement last Friday expanding the number of playoff teams to 10 starting with the '12 season "proved predictable" because when "fairness and entertainment value face off, entertainment usually wins," according to Ben Reiter of SI. One potential pitfall of the new system is that it will "likely push further into the past the days when the sport's best team regularly wound up as that season's champion." In the 25 years following MLB's expansion in '69 from two playoff teams to four, the team with the "best regular-season record won the championship" 28% of the time and made it to the World Series 64% of the time. However, since MLB implemented the wild card in '95, only three clubs "with the best regular-season record have won the World Series," which is 18%, and just seven have reached the World Series, or 41% (SI, 3/12 issue).
MIXED REAX: THE DAILY presents a roundup of reactions to the expanded playoffs collected over the past week from columnists, players and execs from across the country. In Philadelphia, John Smallwood wrote, "I'm all for it. I don't see how adding another wild card for a one-game playoff diminishes the 162-game regular season anymore than having playoffs already has" (PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS, 3/3). On Long Island, Ken Davidoff wrote, "Fundamentally, it's hard not to like the revision." The "temporary quibble comes in the introduction of the format for this year" instead of '13. Davidoff: "You can set your watch to it: Something is going to happen that is going to create a logistical nightmare. It could be weather delays. It could be a three-way tie." But something will happen and critics will be "accusing baseball bigwigs of prioritizing dollars over schedule integrity" (NEWSDAY, 3/3). YAHOO SPORTS' Steve Henson: "The value outweighs the issues. The excitement will trump the inconvenience. Baseball at any level is most enjoyable when one game determines who advances and who goes home" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 3/2). In St. Louis, Bernie Miklasz: "I'm not crazy about this, but it's OK." If MLB Commissioner Bud Selig "wants to add a second wild card in each league, fine." But at least "have them play a best-of-three series." Miklasz: "This is just the latest gimmick designed to generate more revenue. The only real surprise is that it took Selig so long to lunge for the cash" (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 3/4). In N.Y., Kevin Kernan: "No matter how it is set-up, one extra wild-card team is one too many. ... Baseball becomes 'Survivor' with the one-game playoff, "all of this after running a marathon" (N.Y. POST, 3/3). In Sacramento, Victor Contreras: "The mission of the commissioner's office is to protect the integrity of the game, but this move seems only to hurt it" (SACRAMENTO BEE, 3/5). In Jacksonville, David Johnson wrote Selig and the owners are "simply making a cash grab, while pretending to fix a problem that doesn't exist." Adding a one-game playoff between the two wild cards "might be Selig's worst idea yet" (JACKSONVILLE.com, 3/3).
PLAYERS, MANAGERS REACT: Indians manager Manny Acta said, "It gets another team in the playoffs, and it will tend to make more teams play harder until the end of the season." Indians LF Shelley Duncan: "It gives another team a shot. But what I like most is that it gives teams another reason to win the division and avoid a one-and-out situation." Indians P Chris Perez said, "I'm in favor of the extra spot, but not one and done" (AKRON BEACON JOURNAL, 3/5). Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine said, "If it gives every game of the regular season more value, I think it's a good thing" (BOSTON GLOBE, 3/3). Phillies P Roy Halladay said, "For a team to play 162 games, and everything you go through during the season, to play one game to decide if you're going to the playoffs -- that would be a tough pill to swallow. You get a couple bad calls, a couple bad bounces, and all your work has gone to waste. So that one's a tough one for me" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 3/5).
